DOCSLIB.ORG

King Richard III: Updated Edition Edited by Janis Lull Frontmatter More Information

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-73556-8 - King Richard III: Updated Edition Edited by Janis Lull Frontmatter More information THE NEW CAMBRIDGE SHAKESPEARE general editor Brian Gibbons associate general editor A. R. Braunmuller, University of California, Los Angeles From the publication of the first volumes in 1984 the General Editor of the New Cambridge Shakespeare was Philip Brockbank and the Associate General Editors were Brian Gibbons and Robin Hood. From 1990 to 1994 the General Editor was Brian Gibbons and the Associate General Editors were A. R. Braunmuller and Robin Hood. KING RICHARD III King Richard III is one of Shakespeare’s most popular and frequently performed plays. Janis Lull’s introduction to this new edition, based on the First Folio, emphasises the play’s tragic themes – individual identity, determinism and choice – and stresses the importance of women’s roles in the play. It also underscores the special relationship between Richard III and Macbeth, demonstrating that the later tragedy re-examines issues raised in the earlier one. A thorough performance history of stage and film versions of Richard III shows how the text has been cut, rewritten and reshaped by directors and actors to enhance the role of Richard at the expense of other parts, especially those of the women. This updated edition contains a new introductory section covering recent criticism and performances – including the RSC cycles of the history plays – of this perennially popular play. The notes define the play’s language in terms easily accessible to contemporary readers. © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-73556-8 - King Richard III: Updated Edition Edited by Janis Lull Frontmatter More information THE NEW CAMBRIDGE SHAKESPEARE All’s Well That Ends Well, edited by Russell Fraser Antony and Cleopatra, edited by David Bevington As You Like It, edited by Michael Hattaway The Comedy of Errors,editedbyT.S.Dorsch Coriolanus, edited by Lee Bliss Cymbeline, edited by Martin Butler Hamlet, edited by Philip Edwards Julius Caesar, edited by Marvin Spevack King Edward III, edited by Giorgio Melchiori TheFirstPartofKingHenryIV, edited by Herbert Weil and Judith Weil The Second Part of King Henry IV, edited by Giorgio Melchiori King Henry V, edited by Andrew Gurr TheFirstPartofKingHenryVI, edited by Michael Hattaway The Second Part of King Henry VI, edited by Michael Hattaway The Third Part of King Henry VI, edited by Michael Hattaway King Henry VIII, edited by John Margeson King John,editedbyL.A.Beaurline The Tragedy of King Lear, edited by Jay L. Halio King Richard II, edited by Andrew Gurr King Richard III, edited by Janis Lull Love’s Labour’s Lost, edited by William C. Carroll Macbeth, edited by A. R. Braunmuller Measure for Measure, edited by Brian Gibbons The Merchant of Venice,editedbyM.M.Mahood The Merry Wives of Windsor, edited by David Crane A Midsummer Night’s Dream, edited by R. A. Foakes Much Ado About Nothing,editedbyF.H.Mares Othello, edited by Norman Sanders Pericles, edited by Doreen DelVecchio and Antony Hammond The Poems,editedbyJohnRoe Romeo and Juliet, edited by G. Blakemore Evans The Sonnets, edited by G. Blakemore Evans The Taming of the Shrew, edited by Ann Thompson The Tempest, edited by David Lindley Timon of Athens,editedbyKarlKlein Titus Andronicus, edited by Alan Hughes Troilus and Cressida, edited by Anthony B. Dawson Twelfth Night, edited by Elizabeth Story Donno The Two Gentlemen of Verona, edited by Kurt Schlueter The Two Noble Kinsmen, edited by Robert Kean Turner and Patricia Tatspaugh The Winter’s Tale, edited by Susan Snyder and Deborah T. Curren-Aquino the early quartos The First Quarto of Hamlet, edited by Kathleen O. Irace The First Quarto of King Henry V, edited by Andrew Gurr The First Quarto of King Lear, edited by Jay L. Halio The First Quarto of King Richard III, edited by Peter Davison The First Quarto of Othello, edited by Scott McMillin The First Quarto of Romeo and Juliet, edited by Lukas Erne The Taming of a Shrew: The 1594 Quarto, edited by Stephen Roy Miller © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-73556-8 - King Richard III: Updated Edition Edited by Janis Lull Frontmatter More information KING RICHARD III Updated edition Edited by JANIS LULL University of Alaska Fairbanks © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-73556-8 - King Richard III: Updated Edition Edited by Janis Lull Frontmatter More information University Printing House, Cambridge cb2 8bs, United Kingdom Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. Itif urthersit heiU niversity’si missionib i disseminatingy ik nowledgeii ithen ip ursuitio f education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521735568 C Cambridge University Press 1999, 2009 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 1999 Updated edition 2009 876th printing 2015 Printed in the United Kingdom by Clays, St Ives plc. A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data Shakespeare, William, 1564–1616. King Richard III / edited by Janis Lull. – Updated ed. p. cm. – (The new Cambridge Shakespeare) Includes bibliographical references. isbn 978-0-521-51474-3 1. Shakespeare, William, 1564–1616. King Richard III. 2. Richard III, King of England, 1452–1485 –Drama. 3. Great Britain – History – Richard III, 1483–1485 –Drama. I. Lull, Janis. II. Title. III. Series. pr2821.a2l85 2009 822.33 –dc22 2009004914 isbn 978-0-521-51474-3 Hardback isbn 978-0-521-73556-8 Paperback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-73556-8 - King Richard III: Updated Edition Edited by Janis Lull Frontmatter More information To David © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-73556-8 - King Richard III: Updated Edition Edited by Janis Lull Frontmatter More information © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-73556-8 - King Richard III: Updated Edition Edited by Janis Lull Frontmatter More information CONTENTS List of illustrations page viii Acknowledgements x List of abbreviations and conventions xi Introduction 1 History and meaning in Richard III 1 Richard III and Macbeth 16 Plot and language in Richard III 19 Richard III in performance 24 The audience in Richard III 40 Recent stage, film and critical interpretations 41 Note on the text 52 List of characters 56 THE PLAY 61 Textual analysis 219 Appendix 1:Theq-only ‘clock’ passage 230 Appendix 2: The Plantagenet family tree 232 Reading list 234 vii © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-73556-8 - King Richard III: Updated Edition Edited by Janis Lull Frontmatter More information ILLUSTRATIONS 1 David Garrick in an engraving by William Hogarth (Folger Shakespeare Library) page 13 2 The Ghosts vanish. King Richard starts out of his Dream: an engraving of the dream scene (5.3) by Henry Fuseli (Folger Shakespeare Library) 15 3 The Two Murderers of the Duke of Clarence: a painting by Henry Fuseli (c. 1780–2) (Folger Shakespeare Library) 21 4 The Rival Richards or Sheakspear in Danger: a cartoon by William Heath (1818) (Folger Shakespeare Library) 27 5 Edwin Booth as Richard III, Boston, 1872, by Henry Linton after a work by John Hennessy (Folger Shakespeare Library) 29 6 Genevieve` Ward as Margaret of Anjou, c. 1896 (Folger Shakespeare Library) 30 7 Laurence Olivier as Richard III and Claire Bloom as Lady Anne in the film directed by Olivier (1955) (Metro Goldwyn Mayer/United Artists) 31 8 Frederick Warde as Richard III in the oldest surviving American feature film (1912) (American Film Institute) 33 9 Antony Sher as the ‘bottled spider’ in the Royal Shakespeare Company’s 1984 production of Richard III. Photograph: Joe Cocks Studio (Shakespeare Centre Library, Stratford-upon-Avon) 35 10 Simon Russell Beale as Richard III waits with Prince Edward (Kate Duchene)ˆ and Buckingham (Stephen Boxer) for the young Duke of York (Royal Shakespeare Company, 1992) (Shakespeare Centre Library) 37 11 David Troughton as Richard III plays jester to the court of Edward IV in the 1995 Royal Shakespeare Company production (Shakespeare Centre Library) 38 12 Ian McKellen as Richard III and Kristin Scott Thomas as Lady Anne in Richard Loncraine’s film adaptation set in the 1930s(1995) (Metro Goldwyn Mayer/United Artists) 40 viii © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-73556-8 - King Richard III: Updated Edition Edited by Janis Lull Frontmatter More information [ix] List of illustrations 13 Kenneth Branagh, Michael Jenn and Danny Webb in Richard III directed by Michael Grandage (Crucible Theatre, Sheffield, 2002). Photograph: Ivan Kyncl. 42 14 Amber Allison and Henry Holden in the Nicu’s Spoon’s production of Richard III (Spoon Theater, New York, 2007). Photograph: Stephanie Barton-Farcas. 45 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-73556-8 - King Richard III: Updated Edition Edited by Janis Lull Frontmatter More information ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to colleagues who have discussed King Richard III with me over the years, and to Georgianna Ziegler and the excellent staff of the Folger Shakespeare Library.
Recommended publications
  • ANNE BARTON Anne Barton 1933–2013

    ANNE BARTON Anne Barton 1933–2013

    ANNE BARTON Anne Barton 1933–2013 IN 1953 SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY, then, as now, one of the two leading academic Shakespeare journals in the world, published an article concisely titled ‘Love’s Labour’s Lost’.1 The list of contributors identified the author as ‘Miss Bobbyann Roesen, a Senior at Bryn Mawr’, who ‘is the first under- graduate to contribute an essay to Shakespeare Quarterly. She attended the Shakespeare Institute at Stratford-upon-Avon in the summer of 1952 and hopes to pursue graduate studies in Renaissance literature at Oxford or Cambridge.’2 Looking back forty years later, the former Miss Roesen, now Anne Barton, had ‘a few qualms and misgivings’ about reprinting the article in a collection of some of her pieces. As usual, her estimate of her own work was accurate, if too modest: As an essay drawing fresh attention to a play extraordinarily neglected or mis- represented before that date, it does not seem to me negligible. Both its high estimate of the comedy and the particular reading it advances are things in which I still believe. But, however influential it may have been, it is now a period piece, written in a style all too redolent of a youthful passion for Walter Pater.3 Undoubtedly influential and far from negligible, the article not only continues to read well, for all its Paterisms, but also continues to seem an extraordinary accomplishment for an undergraduate. There is, through- out, a remarkable ability to close-read Shakespeare carefully and with sus- tained sensitivity, to see how the language is working on the page and how 1 Bobbyann Roesen, ‘Love’s Labour’s Lost’, Shakespeare Quarterly, 4 (1953), 411–26.
  • Making Shakespeare Accessible to the High School Student: a Study of Language and Relationships in Hamlet and the Taming of the Shrew

    Making Shakespeare Accessible to the High School Student: a Study of Language and Relationships in Hamlet and the Taming of the Shrew

    Making Shakespeare Accessible to the High School Student: A Study of Language and Relationships in Hamlet and The Taming of the Shrew Virginia Kay Jones INTRODUCTION Having taught for over thirty years at an inner city high school, I have tried not only to shape my curriculum to my students‘ needs but also to make the study of British literature relevant to my students‘ lives. The teaching of Shakespeare is always a challenge. I have taught Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, Macbeth, The Taming of the Shrew, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and Hamlet—all with varying degrees of success. For the past few years, Hamlet has been my focal point for the spring semester of senior English. Although my students enjoy the play—often stating that it is the first Shakespearean play that they have liked—I feel that I can do more than what I am doing. By just reading and discussing a play, a student cannot appreciate the essence of the work. My students love language. They can improvise rap and create beautiful poetry with little prompting. However, they are afraid to tackle Shakespeare. I intend to design a unit that will make the study of Shakespeare more accessible to my students by helping them ―come to terms‖ with the language. My students also love to act, so I want to teach Shakespeare with a more performance-based approach. Additionally, I want to expose my students to Shakespearean comedy as well as tragedy. A unit designed around the theme of relationships (male-female, sibling, and parent-child) is the thread to connect Hamlet and The Taming of the Shrew and make them more relevant to today‘s students.
  • VII Shakespeare

    VII Shakespeare

    VII Shakespeare BRETT GREATLEY-HIRSCH, PETER J. SMITH, ELISABETTA TARANTINO, DOMENICO LOVASCIO, SHIRLEY BELL, CHRISTIAN GRIFFITHS, KATE WILKINSON, SHEILAGH ILONA O’BRIEN, AND LOUISE POWELL This chapter has three sections: 1. Editions and Textual Studies; 2. Shakespeare in the Theatre; 3. Criticism. Section 1 is by Brett Greatley- Hirsch; section 2 is by Peter J. Smith; section 3(a) is by Elisabetta Tarantino; section 3(b) is by Domenico Lovascio; section 3(c) is by Shirley Bell; section 3(d) is by Christian Griffiths; section 3(e) is by Kate Wilkinson; section 3(f) is by Sheilagh Ilona O’Brien; section 3(g) is by Louise Powell. 1. Editions and Textual Studies Readers will, I hope, forgive the relative brevity and narrow scope of this section as a necessary consequence of accepting the YWES brief three-quarters into the year. To avoid piecemeal, superficial treatment of the full range of this year’s offerings in Shakespearean textual studies, I limit my focus to a more manageable section of scholarship: studies in authorship attribution and the apocrypha. My discussion thus excludes a great deal of interesting and important work across a field whose vibrancy and rapid evolution is reflected by the range of topics brought together in Margaret Jane Kidnie and Sonia Massai’s Shakespeare and Textual Studies (CUP). My capacity as interim caretaker of this section similarly does not allow me to give the third edition of The Norton Shakespeare (Norton) and three impressive monographs — Laura Estill’s Dramatic Extracts in Seventeenth-Century English Manuscripts (UDelP), Judith Milhous and Robert D.
  • Hamlet (The New Cambridge Shakespeare, Philip Edwards Ed., 2E, 2003)

    Hamlet (The New Cambridge Shakespeare, Philip Edwards Ed., 2E, 2003)

    Hamlet Prince of Denmark Edited by Philip Edwards An international team of scholars offers: . modernized, easily accessible texts • ample commentary and introductions . attention to the theatrical qualities of each play and its stage history . informative illustrations Hamlet Philip Edwards aims to bring the reader, playgoer and director of Hamlet into the closest possible contact with Shakespeare's most famous and most perplexing play. He concentrates on essentials, dealing succinctly with the huge volume of commentary and controversy which the play has provoked and offering a way forward which enables us once again to recognise its full tragic energy. The introduction and commentary reveal an author with a lively awareness of the importance of perceiving the play as a theatrical document, one which comes to life, which is completed only in performance.' Review of English Studies For this updated edition, Robert Hapgood Cover design by Paul Oldman, based has added a new section on prevailing on a draining by David Hockney, critical and performance approaches to reproduced by permission of tlie Hamlet. He discusses recent film and stage performances, actors of the Hamlet role as well as directors of the play; his account of new scholarship stresses the role of remembering and forgetting in the play, and the impact of feminist and performance studies. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS www.cambridge.org THE NEW CAMBRIDGE SHAKESPEARE GENERAL EDITOR Brian Gibbons, University of Munster ASSOCIATE GENERAL EDITOR A. R. Braunmuller, University of California, Los Angeles From the publication of the first volumes in 1984 the General Editor of the New Cambridge Shakespeare was Philip Brockbank and the Associate General Editors were Brian Gibbons and Robin Hood.
  • Douglas Bruster

    Douglas Bruster

    DOUGLAS BRUSTER Mody C. Boatright Regents Professor in American and English Literature Distinguished Teaching Professor Department of English, 1 University Station B5000 The University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas 78712-1164 512.471.3635 (Office) ● 512.550.3465 (Mobile) [email protected] CURRICULUM VITAE EDUCATION ______________________________________________________________________________ 1990 Harvard University Ph.D. (English) 1987 Harvard University M.A. (English) 1985 University of Nebraska B.A. (English, History, Latin) ______________________________________________________________________________ APPOINTMENTS ______________________________________________________________________________ 2009- The University of Texas at Austin 2008 Université de Paris X (visiting professor) 1999-2008 The University of Texas at Austin 1995-99 The University of Texas at San Antonio 1991-95 The University of Chicago 1990-91 Harvard University ______________________________________________________________________________ PUBLICATIONS ~ BOOKS _____________________________________________________________________________ v Shakespeare and the Power of Performance: Stage and Page in the Elizabethan Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. With Robert Weimann. v To Be or Not To Be. London and New York: Continuum, 2007. v Prologues to Shakespeare’s Theatre: Performance and Liminality in Early Modern Drama. London and New York: Routledge, 2004. With Robert Weimann. v Shakespeare and the Question of Culture: Early Modern Literature
  • Arxiv:1610.05670V2 [Cs.CL] 3 Aug 2017

    Arxiv:1610.05670V2 [Cs.CL] 3 Aug 2017

    Stylometric Analysis of Early Modern Period English Plays Mark Eisen1, Santiago Segarra2, Gabriel Egan3, and Alejandro Ribeiro1 1Dept. of Electrical and Systems Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA 2Inst. for Data, Systems, and Society, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA 3School of Humanities, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK Editor: Abstract Function word adjacency networks (WANs) are used to study the authorship of plays from the Early Modern English period. In these networks, nodes are function words and directed edges between two nodes represent the relative frequency of directed co-appearance of the two words. For every analyzed play, a WAN is constructed and these are aggregated to generate author profile networks. We first study the similarity of writing styles between Early English playwrights by comparing the profile WANs. The accuracy of using WANs for authorship attribution is then demonstrated by attributing known plays among six popular play- wrights. Moreover, the WAN method is shown to outperform other frequency-based methods on attributing Early English plays. In addition, WANs are shown to be reliable classifiers even when attributing collaborative plays. For several plays of disputed co-authorship, a deeper analysis is performed by attributing every act and scene separately, in which we both corroborate existing breakdowns and provide evidence of new assignments. 1 Introduction Stylometry involves the quantitative analysis of a text’s linguistic features in order to gain further insight into its underlying elements, such as authorship or genre. Along with common uses in digital forensics (De Vel et al., 2001; Stamatatos, 2009) and plagiarism detection (Meuschke and Gipp, 2013), stylometry has also become the primary method for evaluating authorship disputes in historical texts, such as the Federalist papers arXiv:1610.05670v2 [cs.CL] 3 Aug 2017 (Mosteller and Wallace, 1964; Holmes and Forsyth, 1995) and the Mormon scripture (Holmes, 1992), in a field called authorship attribution.
  • The Forty-First Annual Region III Festival 2009 Illinois, Indiana

    The Forty-First Annual Region III Festival 2009 Illinois, Indiana

    The Forty-first Annual Region III Festival 2009 ynes H Jason Jason : y b esigned D Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin January 6 to 11, 2009 Hosted by Saginaw Valley State University Presented and Produced by The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts The Kennedy Center American College Theater Festival is sponsored by Delta Air Lines Additional support is provided by: The U.S. Department of Education Dr. and Mrs. Gerald McNichols The Laura Pels International Foundation The Kennedy Center Corporate Fund The National Committee for the Performing Arts Region III 41st Kennedy Center American College Theater Festival 1 2009 Festival Productions The Seagull by Anton Chekhov, translated by Jean-Claude van Itallie Purdue University Chekhov’s monumental masterpiece of unrequited love, failed ambition and the changing face of Russian theatre is presented here within a theatrical world of heightened realism and vivid metaphor. Mobile aquariums, the color TV of 1890’s Russia, white period furniture floating on a high gloss black floor, cascading light bulbs, a heightened Edwardian fashion sensibility and Gypsy music all pay homage to Chekhov’s own desire to have symbol and metaphor more fully represent the world of his plays. FRIDAY, JANUARY 9 8:00 PM Temple Theatre How I Learned to Drive The Trojan Women by Paula Vogel by Euripides, adapted by Ellen McLaughlin University of Michigan-Flint Oakland University “How I Learned to Drive” unfolds with all the slow motion clarity of an impend- The Women of Troy struggle with the aftermath of war and destruction of ing car crash as we witness the social dynamic that exposes a young girl to the sys- their beloved homeland.
  • The Shakespeare Apocrypha and Canonical Expansion in the Marketplace

    The Shakespeare Apocrypha and Canonical Expansion in the Marketplace

    The Shakespeare Apocrypha and Canonical Expansion in the Marketplace Peter Kirwan 1 n March 2010, Brean Hammond’s new edition of Lewis Theobald’s Double Falsehood was added to the ongoing third series of the Arden Shakespeare, prompting a barrage of criticism in the academic press I 1 and the popular media. Responses to the play, which may or may not con- tain the “ghost”2 of Shakespeare and Fletcher’s Cardenio, have dealt with two issues: the question of whether Double Falsehood is or is not a forgery;3 and if the latter, the question of how much of it is by Shakespeare. This second question as a criterion for canonical inclusion is my starting point for this paper, as scholars and critics have struggled to define clearly the boundar- ies of, and qualifications for, canonicity. James Naughtie, in a BBC radio interview with Hammond to mark the edition’s launch, suggested that a new attribution would only be of interest if he had “a big hand, not just was one of the people helping to throw something together for a Friday night.”4 Naughtie’s comment points us toward an important, unqualified aspect of the canonical problem—how big does a contribution by Shakespeare need to be to qualify as “Shakespeare”? The act of inclusion in an editedComplete Works popularly enacts the “canonization” of a work, fixing an attribution in print and commodifying it within a saleable context. To a very real extent, “Shakespeare” is defined as what can be sold as Shakespearean. Yet while canonization operates at its most fundamental as a selection/exclusion binary, collaboration compli- cates the issue.
  • Macbeth Study Guide

    Macbeth Study Guide

    Sacramento Theatre Company Study Guide Macbeth By: William Shakespeare Study Guide Materials Compiled by Anna Miles 1 Sacramento Theatre Company Mission Statement The Sacramento Theatre Company (STC) strives to be the leader in integrating professional theatre with theatre arts education. STC produces engaging professional theatre, provides exceptional theatre training, and uses theatre as a tool for educational engagement. Our History The theatre was originally formed as the Sacramento Civic Repertory Theatre in 1942, an ad hoc troupe formed to entertain locally-stationed troops during World War II. On October 18, 1949, the Sacramento Civic Repertory Theatre acquired a space of its own with the opening of the Eaglet Theatre, named in honor of the Eagle, a Gold Rush-era theatre built largely of canvas that had stood on the city’s riverfront in the 1850s. The Eaglet Theatre eventually became the Main Stage of the not-for-profit Sacramento Theatre Company, which evolved from a community theatre to professional theatre company in the 1980s. Now producing shows in three performance spaces, it is the oldest theatre company in Sacramento. After five decades of use, the Main Stage was renovated as part of the H Street Theatre Complex Project. Features now include an expanded and modernized lobby and a Cabaret Stage for special performances. The facility also added expanded dressing rooms, laundry capabilities, and other equipment allowing the transformation of these performance spaces, used nine months of the year by STC, into backstage and administration places for three months each summer to be used by California Musical Theatre for Music Circus.
  • A Response to W. Ron Hess,“Shakespeare’S Dates: Their Effect on Stylistic Analysis”

    A Response to W. Ron Hess,“Shakespeare’S Dates: Their Effect on Stylistic Analysis”

    CAN THE OXFORD CANDIDACY BE SAVED? A Response to W. Ron Hess,“Shakespeare’s Dates: Their Effect on Stylistic Analysis” Ward E.Y. Elliott and Robert J. Valenza ❦ There is a differency between a grub and a butterfly, yet your butterfly was a grub. Coriolanus: 5:4.12 LD-SCHOOL Oxfordians still fondly remember the trick that Oxfordian scholar Louis Benezet, Sr. liked to play on Stratfordian English Lit pro- fessors in the 1940’s. He would give them a seventy-line mixture of pas- sages from Shakespeare and Oxford, defy them to tell one author from the other, find they had great trouble in doing so, and conclude that his experiment showed their styles to be barely distinguishable.1 Much has changed since those days. In 1980, Steven May (79-84) showed from external evidence (and over Charlton Ogburn, Jr.’s objections that “he is unconcerned with stylistic criteria” [396]) that some of the passages Benezet thought were Oxford’s were in fact written by Robert Greene, and that five other poems confidently assigned to Oxford by J.T. Looney and other Oxfordian scholars (following A.B. Grosart), were not Oxford’s work. In 1987, our students in the Claremont Shakespeare Clinic, sponsored by the Sloan Foundation and the Shakespeare Authorship Roundtable, began what became a seven-year computer study of all testable Shakespeare claimants, to see which, if any, matched Shakespeare. For the first two years the tests were favorable to Oxford, attracting much inter- est among Oxfordians and warm invitations to present our results to Oxfordian audiences.
  • 7Th Annual De Vere Studies Conference Shakespeare Question Debated at Smithsonian

    7Th Annual De Vere Studies Conference Shakespeare Question Debated at Smithsonian

    Vol.2:no.4 "Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments..." Summer 2003 Shakespeare 7th Annual De Vere question debated Studies Conference Attendees treated to new at Smithsonian insights and breaking news By Peter Rush By Peter Rush he 2003 Edward de Vere n April 19 the Smithsonian Institution sponsored a day- Studies Conference in long debate pitting three prominent Stratfordian scholars TPortland, Oregon proved Oagainst three noted Oxfordian experts. It was one of—if not to be one of the best in its seven- the—best such debate that this reviewer is aware of. The right year history. Over the course of people were in the room, lots of important issues were raised and three days of papers and panel responded to by both sides, and each side had the opportunity to discussions, some ground- “throw its best stuff” at the other’s strongest arguments. I believe breaking research was pre- that the preponderance of strong, unrefuted arguments was made sented, and in a few cases, news by the Oxfordians, and that the Stratfordians left many crucial was made. Several of the most arguments unanswered, while the Stratfordians strongest suit was newsworthy stories involved the a number of assertions—drawn largely from Alan Nelson’s forth- authorship debate itself and in- coming biography of Oxford—for which “proof” was promised, formation of interest to all and should be demanded. The result was that—unlike some other Shakespeareans. The biggest news of the debates—we were not left standing on “square one,” but rather the Prof.
  • Shakespeare Resources

    Shakespeare Resources

    Shakespeare Resources The Plays Sometimes it may seem that we are swimming in a veritable ocean of different versions of the works of William Shakespeare. Indeed, the proliferation of editions in the past fifty years has been staggering, and the general reader or actor may be baffled about which edition to purchase. Here’s my general recommendation: buy one of the more recent one-volume editions, such as The Riverside Shakespeare or The Norton Shakespeare, as a basic reference. Both of these editions have good notes, as well as strong supplementary material. You’re pretty safe with any of the editions listed below, though the Globe is obviously outdated at this point, and the one-volume Arden and Oxford editions – as opposed to the individual play editions in the Arden and Oxford series – have virtually no support material. Then, when you require more in-depth textual notes and associated scholarly material to supplement the reading or analysis of individual plays, consult individual volumes from the well-known series of individual plays listed below. My personal recommendations for actors and directors are the Everyman series, the Arden series (look for the Third Series when available), and the Oxford or Cambridge single-volume series, which have gotten much stronger and more competitive with the Arden series in recent years. One-Volume Editions of the Collected Works The Globe Shakespeare, edited by William George Clark and William Aldis Wright, 1864. This famous edition was itself a derivative of Clark and Wright’s multi-volume Cambridge edition published between 1863 and 1866. The publisher Macmillan repackaged Clark and Wright’s text, dispensing with their intricate textual collation notes, reducing the edition to a single volume, and repricing it for the mass market where for many years it stood as the standard compact Shakespeare, offering a plain text of all the works with a glossary at the end of the volume.